https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28959
--- Comment #26 from Tomás Cohen Arazi <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Fridolin Somers from comment #25) > (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #24) > > (In reply to Joonas Kylmälä from comment #18) > > > > > This patch does not alter the message we are giving out, we already say > > > before this patch explicitly in the OPAC GUI whether a list is Public or > > > not. So I wouldn't take that into consideration whether to accept this > > > patch > > > or not. If we want to use another naming it can be done even after this > > > patch, this patch doesn't make it any harder as far as I can tell. > > > > So, we implicitly already have three categories. And some requests show that > > people are still shaking the tree. Might extending categories solve that? > > Not sure. But we choose to put that aside here and make it a boolean. I have > > no strong arguments against it but just have the intuitive feeling that this > > may not be the right direction :) > > I also had the feeling we could keep a place for a third value. > But the need here is for API routes to know if datas can be open to the > public or not. That is binary. Isn't the fact that a list is shared just another boolean? What if we decided to make lists shareable with specific patrons or categories? We need stop doing things implicitly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
